User talk:Author 91

Welcome!

Hello, Author 91, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Kshatriya

Please would you revert your recent edit at Kshatriya and continue discussion as requested on the article talk page. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

Your recent editing history at Kshatriya shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Sitush (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the community has agreed on sanctions relating to articles such as this. Your efforts actually fall foul of two different sanctions that are in force. I attach below the notice for one of those, while the other can be read as the "India-Pakistan" entry here. - Sitush (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Hi, Author 91. I have blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring on Kshatriya. Your comment on the edit warring noticeboard ("I am not edit warring") suggests that you may not be familiar with the wikipedia definition of edit warring. Please check out the policy, so that you'll be more easily able to avoid edit warring when you return. Please note especially that the "bright-line" 24-hour rule — that you must not revert more than three times within 24 hours — doesn't mean you can continue indefinitely to revert in a more spaced-out way. Even without violating the three-revert rule, you will still be blocked for edit warring if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. You have been repeatedly warned and advised of this, and I'm afraid I see your behavior as indicating that you do intend to keep reverting.

I understand that you want to improve the article, but remarks like "So what makes you think that we should consider widely accepted opinions only" show that you're not fully aware of the kind of content that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. This is explained in the important policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You might want to focus on the section "Due and undue weight"; it explains the question of "widely accepted opinions" more fully than I can do here. Sitush is an experienced editor who gives you good advice; please listen to it.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 15:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Author 91 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I apologize for my behavior. All I was trying to do was contribute but ended up going against the policies. I understand that for everything we need to do here, there are proper channels and we need to follow them. I also want to state that my concerns towards people who don't state proper reasons before reverting my edits are also true. By "wide accepted opinions", I meant the opinions people have made about things they haven't read about much but gained some information from current media. The subject I am editing about hasn't been studied much of late. So I request to unblock me, I'll work with patience towards the idea and will also expect patience from the fellow editors.

Decline reason:

Per comment about inadequacy of request below. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I think you will need to better explain why you were edit-warring, why it was the wrong thing to do, and how you'll ensure it never happens again...see WP:GAB for more assistance with forming an unblock (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Author 91, for what it is worth, your block should have already expired by the time that Daniel Case declined your unblock request. I think that DC was probably just tidying things up. Feel free to contribute again but please, please try to work within our policies and guidelines. If for some reason you cannot contribute then stick a note here and I'll alert an administrator to the problem asap: very occasionally, there can be delays - I've never quite worked out why because I've never been blocked nor can I enact the things! - Sitush (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]